My brain does not compute.

[attofishpi]

<-- edit --> drunk atto speaketh vulgaritiease

[attofishpi]

Can't wait to see wot the final reasoning you have, explained in full detail(s) for finally expressing wot's in your mind, alas held back, that atto = IDIOT

WOOF!

Of course - I made it clear already. I fully intend to equate you to an idiot.

So how many times have I equated you to an idiot? 0 or 1 ?

How does != once equate?

[Age]

If a child were to say that they will never tell lies again and then lie, would they have told a lie?

Why 'a child'?

Would the answer to your question be different if the question was about 'an adult'?

And, why do you say, 'and then lie'? If anyone says that they will never tell a lie again is obviously telling either 'a lie', or 'an impossible to know thing'.

It would be like anyone saying, 'i do not lie', they are are obviously, saying 'a lie', at the very moment of saying, or writing, those words.

My question about "a child" was chosen to simplify the scenario and make it clearer from a moral and psychological standpoint.

How and why?

Obviously, the situation applies to an adult as well.

So, using the 'child' word, really, did not 'simplify' any thing.

Regarding the phrasing "and then lie," the idea is to illustrate a hypothetical situation where someone promises not to lie anymore but then does.

So, the word 'child' was, supposedly, used to 'simplify the scenario' and to 'make it clearer from a moral and psychological standpoint', but the scenario/situation applies to an 'adult', equally, as well, and, in fact, the situation could apply to someone/anyone anyway.

However, the main point is to discuss the nature and consequences of lying.

Okay, so the Truth is 'a child' was, really, not of any consequence at all here, right?

And, if you want to discuss the nature and consequences of 'lying', then one just has to 'look at' you adult human beings to see the havoc on 'the world' to see, first hand, the consequences of your adult human beings continually lying, and continual refusal to 'look at' your lies, Honestly.

If someone says, "I never lie" and then lies, it means their initial promise was a lie.

BUT, 'I never lie', is a whole totally different scenario, and situation.

'I will never lie', and, 'I never lie', are two completely different things here. Which alter the answer that you are, seemingly, seeking here.

Also, anyone who says, 'I never lie', is not promising anything, they are just 'lying'.

This is a philosophical point about honesty and integrity.

This here is a prime example of why it took you human beings millennia to find and uncover the actual Truth of things.

[attofishpi]

It's got nothing to do with my POV regarding EVIDENCE Skeppy - it's the GRAND MASTER of the system we are in. A LIE is a LIE --> IT existed in the child's brain.

The intention to tell a lie in future existed, absolutely.

Just like the intention to call you an idiot currently exists in my head.

Have I called you an idiot?

Skeppy...where were we?

PREMISE BEING: "If a child were to say that they will never tell lies again and then lie, would they have told a lie?"


Is the term "idiot" still rattling around inside your head, ready to be released upon atto - where you have grounds to call me an idiot after the below based on the above premise? ...do point out the failure of my logic and then EARN the right to call me an IDIOT.


1 . If the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

= 1 lie.

2. The child then lies, AGAIN.

= 2 lies.

Thus, definitely 1 lie---- possibly 2 lies...is the answer.

It can only be answered for 2 lies IF the child knew at the time of making the statement, right there and then that it was lying.

[Skepdick]

It's got nothing to do with my POV regarding EVIDENCE Skeppy - it's the GRAND MASTER of the system we are in. A LIE is a LIE --> IT existed in the child's brain.

The intention to tell a lie in future existed, absolutely.

Just like the intention to call you an idiot currently exists in my head.

Have I called you an idiot?

Skeppy...where were we?

PREMISE BEING: "If a child were to say that they will never tell lies again and then lie, would they have told a lie?"


Is the term "idiot" still rattling around inside your head, ready to be released upon atto - where you have grounds to call me an idiot after the below based on the above premise? ...do point out the failure of my logic and then EARN the right to call me an IDIOT.


1 . If the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

= 1 lie.

2. The child then lies, AGAIN.

= 2 lies.

Thus, definitely 1 lie---- possibly 2 lies...is the answer.

It can only be answered for 2 lies IF the child knew at the time of making the statement, right there and then that it was lying.

I can only demonstrate it to you. I can't understand it for you.

I am not lying when I tell you that I am going to call you an idiot.

Go ahead and count the number of lies I've told.

[attofishpi]

The intention to tell a lie in future existed, absolutely.

Just like the intention to call you an idiot currently exists in my head.

Have I called you an idiot?

Skeppy...where were we?

PREMISE BEING: "If a child were to say that they will never tell lies again and then lie, would they have told a lie?"


Is the term "idiot" still rattling around inside your head, ready to be released upon atto - where you have grounds to call me an idiot after the below based on the above premise? ...do point out the failure of my logic and then EARN the right to call me an IDIOT.


1 . If the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

= 1 lie.

2. The child then lies, AGAIN.

= 2 lies.

Thus, definitely 1 lie---- possibly 2 lies...is the answer.

It can only be answered for 2 lies IF the child knew at the time of making the statement, right there and then that it was lying.

I can only demonstrate it to you. I can't understand it for you.

I am not lying when I tell you that I am going to call you an idiot.

Ergo, you insist i BELIEVE at some point in time U R going to call me an idiot.

Go ahead and count the number of lies I've told.

Indeterminable. I cannot determine based on anything you've stated any actual FACT.

[Skepdick]

Indeterminable. I cannot determine based on anything you've stated any actual FACT.

Contradiction.

Use the exact same logic you are peddling below.

1 . If the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

IF I know full well that I am not going to call you an idiot, then claiming that I am going to call you an idiot must be a lie.

= 1 lie.

And yet you can't tell if I've told 1 lie ?!?

[attofishpi]

Indeterminable. I cannot determine based on anything you've stated any actual FACT.

Contradiction.

Use the exact same logic you are peddling below.

1 . If the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

IF I know full well that I am not going to call you an idiot, then claiming that I am going to call you an idiot must be a lie.

= 1 lie.

And yet you can't tell if I've told 1 lie ?!?

What is it about U that U insist on complicating simple logic with COMPLICATION to insist upon your original (and wrong) premise? (it's because U know U were wrong and a twat, ****, kunt, fuckstain upon the planet...etc...)

Gotta be an ego trip or sumfin..


It's really rather simple:

PREMISE BEING: "If a child were to say that they will never tell lies again and then lie, would they have told a lie?"


1 . If the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

= 1 lie.

2. The child then lies, AGAIN.

= 2 lies.

Thus, definitely 1 lie---- possibly 2 lies...is the answer.

It can only be answered for 2 lies IF the child knew at the time of making the statement, right there and then that it was lying.

[Skepdick]

Indeterminable. I cannot determine based on anything you've stated any actual FACT.

Contradiction.

Use the exact same logic you are peddling below.

1 . If the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

IF I know full well that I am not going to call you an idiot, then claiming that I am going to call you an idiot must be a lie.

= 1 lie.

And yet you can't tell if I've told 1 lie ?!?

What is it about U that U insist on complicating simple logic with COMPLICATION to insist upon your original (and wrong) premise?

Gotta be an ego trip or sumfin..

I am not complicating anything, dude.

I am pointing out your own confusion about what it is you know vs what it is you are assuming to know.

How many lies am I telling?

IF I am lying about intending to call you an idiot then you should increment your counter.

You haven't incremented your counter. e.g according to you I've told 0 lies.

But what if I was never going to call you an idiot - what if I am lying about my intentions? Then your counter should be at 1.

But it's at 0.

[attofishpi]

Skeppy...!!

Clearly U R attacking everything apart from the PREMISE>--

1 . IF the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

= 1 lie.

2. The child then lies, AGAIN.

= 2 lies.

Thus, definitely 1 lie, possibly 2 lies...is the answer.


ERGO: Again ..and AGAIN...try ...AGAIN...

[Gary Childress]

If a child were to say that they will never tell lies again and then lie, would they have told a lie?

Yes.

[Skepdick]

Skeppy...!!

Clearly U R attacking everything apart from the PREMISE>--

What is it that you don't understand here? There is no premise.

An "IF" is NOT a premise? An "IF" is HALF of a conditional.

1 . IF the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

= 1 lie.

Yes, but where is your ELSE ?

IF child knew THEN lies = 1
ELSE ... ?

[attofishpi]

PREMISE BEING: "If a child were to say that they will never tell lies again and then lie, would they have told a lie?"


Interesting U keep attempting to complicate something so very simple SKEPPY.


It's rather simple:

1 . IF the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

= 1 lie.



2. The child then lies, AGAIN.

ELSE = 2 lies (for simple Skeppy)

= 2 lies.



Thus, definitely 1 lie, possibly 2 lies...is the answer.

(Indeed Skeppy...where was this great paradox U assumed?)

[Skepdick]

PREMISE BEING: "If a child were to say that they will never tell lies again and then lie, would they have told a lie?"


Interesting U keep attempting to complicate something so very simple SKEPPY.


It's rather simple:

1 . IF the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

= 1 lie.

You missed an ELSE here...

2. The child then lies, AGAIN.

The AGAIN doesn't follow in the missing ELSE branch above.

[attofishpi]

Skeppy..I am not going to pander to you requirements.

The premise & the conditions are simple:



PREMISE: If a child were to say that they will never tell lies again and then lie, would they have told a lie?

CONDITIONS:

1 . IF the child knew full well that he/she was going to lie in the future whilst stating "I will never tell lies again"

= 1 lie.

2. The child then lies, AGAIN.

= 2 lies.

Thus, definitely 1 lie, possibly 2 lies...is the answer.


PS. It was never a 'paradox' as according to you ...and it never required ALL the bollocks from every 1 else.